Central Excise Act, 1944

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 January 2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11AC, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Judges, Pankaj Mithal

Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ‘transaction value’ for excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when goods are sold at different prices to different buyers. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Bharat […]

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit on Mobile Towers and Prefabricated Buildings: Bharti Airtel vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 November 2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with duties of excise, Central Excise Act, 1944 with excise tariff, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with Rule 2(a)(A), CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with Rule 2(k), CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 with Rule 3(1)

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit on Mobile Towers and Prefabricated Buildings: Bharti Airtel vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2024) Date of the Judgment: 20 November 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 880 Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. (authored the judgment). Can mobile service providers claim tax credit on the infrastructure they use, like mobile

Supreme Court Allows CENVAT Credit on Mobile Towers and Prefabricated Buildings: Bharti Airtel vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 November 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Baccarose Perfumes: A case of immunity and procedural lapse (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Customs Act, 1962, Customs and Excise Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Baccarose Perfumes: A case of immunity and procedural lapse (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings can continue against a company that has been granted immunity by the Settlement Commission. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Customs and Excise Law Case Name: Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd vs. Central Bureau

Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against Baccarose Perfumes: A case of immunity and procedural lapse (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4A, Rule 2(g), Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, Rule 2(x), Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the goods sold by the respondent-assessee are covered by Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Central

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “manufacture” under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 2(f), Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 18, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Note 3 to Chapter 18, Cenvat Credit, Excise Law, Manufacture, Rebate

Supreme Court Clarifies “Manufacture” Definition in Excise Law: Jindal Drugs Case (2024) Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 354 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Can the simple act of affixing labels on product packaging be considered “manufacturing” under excise law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “manufacture” under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest on Delayed Duty Drawback for Deemed Exports: Union of India vs. B.T. Patil (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11B, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11BB, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 27, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 27A, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 75A, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 with Rule 2(e)

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest on Delayed Duty Drawback for Deemed Exports: Union of India vs. B.T. Patil (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether interest is applicable on delayed duty drawback refunds for deemed exports under the Exim Policy. CASE TYPE: Civil, Foreign Trade Case Name: Union of India and Ors. vs. M/S. B. T. Patil and Sons

Supreme Court Clarifies Interest on Delayed Duty Drawback for Deemed Exports: Union of India vs. B.T. Patil (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4A, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Classification of Goods, Excise Duty

Supreme Court Clarifies Excise Duty on Chewing Tobacco and Zarda: Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 951 Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J. Can a product labeled as “flavored chewing tobacco” be classified differently for excise duty purposes if it contains similar

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11-A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11-AA, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 30, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 33, Dinesh Maheshwari, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Schedule K, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a homeopathic hair oil should be classified as a medicament or a cosmetic for tax purposes. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs. Ashwani

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles recovery of erroneous refunds under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (24 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11B, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 35E, Judges, Krishna Murari, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court clarifies recovery of erroneous refunds under Central Excise Act Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 254 Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J. Can the tax authorities recover an erroneous refund of excise duty without issuing a separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,

Supreme Court settles recovery of erroneous refunds under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (24 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the necessity of Section 11A notice for recovery of erroneous excise duty refunds when reviewed under Section 35E: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (24 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11B, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 35E, Judges, Krishna Murari, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Clarifies Recovery of Erroneous Excise Duty Refunds: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required for the recovery of an erroneously refunded excise duty when the refund order is reviewed under

Supreme Court clarifies the necessity of Section 11A notice for recovery of erroneous excise duty refunds when reviewed under Section 35E: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (24 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central Excise. Case Name: M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR. Judgment Date: 22 March 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Corporate Law, Dipankar Datta, Joint Venture, Judges, Related Person, S. Ravindra Bhat, Subsidiary Company, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the price at which a company sells its products to a buyer should be treated as a transaction with a “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top